VIBERT: Promise may be last chance for N.S. forests

In its first term, the Liberal government failed virtually every test of forest conservation. (123RF)

If you want your kids to remember what Nova Scotia wilderness looked like, you might get them out in the woods sometime soon.

In its first term, the Liberal government failed virtually every test of forest conservation. Premier Stephen McNeil was forced to admit, during the spring provincial election, that there are “serious problems” with current forestry practices. He promised an independent review.

The Sept. 21 throne speech will tell where that promise stands. If there’s some meat on the bones, the government may be serious. If the promise is merely repeated, skepticism is justified. If it’s missing altogether, grab the kids and head for the woods.

Six years ago the province adopted a 10-year strategy to resolve some of the “serious problems” the premier acknowledged. By 2016 the strategy, along with an ever-increasing swath of Nova Scotia forest, was dust.

Folks in the know have speculated on the reasons for the about-face that turned 2011’s proposed limits on clear cutting into today’s forest free-for-all. Some suggest that forest industry “company men” are in charge at the Department of Natural Resources.

The Ecology Action Centre wants the McNeil government to address the culture at DNR. The EAC says the department has abandoned the values of forest management for the value of large-scale industrial forestry.

Others note that, when faced with the spectre of a big paper mill closing, the government threw in the towel. “Show me the money and help yourselves to the trees,” has been Nova Scotia’s forest management policy for decades.

Herald columnist Ralph Surette identified the inherent conflict of interest at DNR years ago: The department both regulates and promotes the forest industry. The promoters are winning.

More than 70 per cent of Nova Scotians want significant limits on clear cutting, yet it remains the harvesting method of choice. The National Forestry Database said that in 2014, clear cutting accounted for 88 per cent of all forest harvesting in the province. Nothing has happened in the intervening years to reduce that number.

Among the experts — outside DNR and the industry — there is collective alarm over the depletion of Nova Scotia’s forests, along with the disastrous toll clear cutting takes on wildlife and plant species. Nova Scotia’s Auditor General Michael Pickup even weighed in, calling out DNR for not living up to legislated commitments to protect species at risk.

Just halfway into the 10-year strategy, it went the way of most long-term plans entrusted to Nova Scotia governments: into the trash bin. Its goal to reduce clear cutting to 50 per cent of the forest harvest by 2016 was completely abandoned that same year, when DNR said it was “moving away” from the commitment to determine what percentage of the forests would be clear cut. The proposal to stop taking whole trees from cut sites, to promote regeneration, was scrapped.

The strategy called for the elimination of public funding for herbicide spraying. Not so fast, said DNR. “We will continue to assess the effectiveness of various forestry practices, including herbicide use.”

The option to implement an annual allowable cut was never taken seriously by DNR and its clients in the forest industry.

The McNeil government’s promise to place at least 13 per cent of the province’s land under protection during its first term came up 34,000 hectares short.

Since 2010, DNR and the government that listens to it have disrespected thousands of citizens who went out to public meetings to support forest conservation and demand limits on clear cutting, trashed its own 10-year strategy, and broke the law that protects species at risk.

For more than half a century, scientists have warned that the province’s forests were being degraded. Since then, diverse old-growth, hardwood stands — red spruce, eastern hemlock, yellow birch, sugar maple, and beech — have all but disappeared.

In a province starved for rural jobs, forestry is the mainstay and get ‘em while they last is the preferred approach. The ecologically sound forest practices of other jurisdictions have proven to offer superior economic benefits, but aren’t for us.

A long-term forest strategy, years in the making, could not survive the pressure of short-term economics. What chance does an election-inspired review have?